Re: WAL FILES

Hi Bruce,

Thank you for your reply. It makes a lot of sense!
However I don't really understand why we can't control the NUMBER of
files.
Are the 8 files I see a maximum usage when I reloaded the databases on the
ne system or is it some sort of "plugged in value"?

Thank you for your explanation.
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
> To: ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr
> Cc: pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL FILES
>
> Olivier PRENANT wrote:
> > Hi every one.
> >
> > I just moved (at last!) to 7.2.1. Works like a charm...
> > I'm suprised though by the number of WAL files.
> >
> > I have 8 files where postgresql.conf says WAL_FILES=4.
> >
> > What did I miss ? (I have no outstanding transaction)
> >
> > FWIW, t's on UW711.
>
> No, you are fine. The current GUC params are confusing. I did update
> the documentation for 7.3, but I plan to reorganize those params to be
> more meaningful.
>
> Actually, I have in TODO:
>
> Remove wal_files postgresql.conf option because WAL files are now
> recycled
>
> because the param no longer controls what you think it controls. In 7.1
> WAL files where not recycled, so WAL_FILES was used to pre-allocate
> files so there wasn't as much happening during checkpoint. Now, with
> recycling, there is no need.
>
>

--
Olivier PRENANT Tel: +33-5-61-50-97-00 (Work)
Quartier d'Harraud Turrou +33-5-61-50-97-01 (Fax)
31190 AUTERIVE +33-6-07-63-80-64 (GSM)
FRANCE Email: ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make your life a dream, make your dream a reality. (St Exupery)